Vandergraaf, Chuck wrote:
>
> Glenn,
>
> In discussing uranium supplies a couple of weeks ago at a conference in
> Austria, one comment was that, even though uranium resources also obey the
> Hubbert curve, in practice the world's uranium supplies are "infinite." The
> argument is based on the fact that there is a low, but not insignificant
> uranium concentration in seawater and that the energy requirements of
> extracting this uranium is less than the energy that can be generated from
> it. Thus, splitting uranium recovered from seawater has a net positive
> energy balance. Extracting uranium from seawater is chemically not that
> difficult as the Japanese have shown.
>
> As I have mentioned before, uranium is not the answer to all our energy
> problems, but it can be part of the solution.
>
> Comments?

[Hammond]
All I can say is thank God that the US didn't
have 2,000 online fission reactors boiling away when
the terrorists decided to use airliners as flying
bombs. A 757 at 500 mph could probably dive right
through the containment building and explode the
core all over the place causing the evacuation of
millions and radioactive contamination for hundreds
of miles. Hitting 4 of them at once would have done
a half a trillion dollars in damage.
Obviously what with the onset of a Third World
revolution that will probably continue unabated for
the next 30 years, I would think the last thing we
should be thinking of is producing hundreds of tons
of Plutonium or U235. The entire US Army couldn't
protect it from terrorist attack or theft.
The idea is absurd. Why didn't Bush put the 1.3
trillion dollars over 10 years into Fusion instead
of a tax cut for people who don't need it. That at
least would have produced a solution to this oil
crisis mess without getting us into WWIII ?